"American fighting forces were well trained and had better tanks, ships, planes, weapons, etc. and DID make a significant difference. They were MORE EFFICIENT, therefore, not as many American lives were lost. "
Of course that's excepting Kasserine Pass and perhaps Anzio.
Seriously, of course America made a big difference being there - but I think that for the sake of international peace we can acknowledge that everyone did their little bit proportional to their capacity. America's great capacity was initially industrial - the Arsenal of Democracy - and it would be wrong to say that American materiel was unnecessary in keeping Britain and Russia - or even China - alive. I think also that what gets the goat of many non-Americans is the either spoken or implied thought that 'America saved the world' or 'America saved your sorry @$$es'. That's not fair, to America or to anyone else.
Sadly, movies like U-571, Pearl Harbor and (I fear) The Few are/will be helping to fuel that sticky point.
I think it's not the lack of creative persons, it's the lack of a) interest in historical events b) money to fund film productions c) good scripts/scriptwriters. I certainly hope a significant independent film movement internationally can bring more great stories of the past to the screen.
Yes American soldiers were well trained - but training alone does not a great battlefield army make. As I mentioned, Rommel handed the American forces in North Africa a terrible defeat at Kasserine Pass. If not for the experience that the British passed on to Americans - the legendary American Rangers trained at Achnacarry alongside the equally legendary Commandos! - then they would have had to reinvent the wheel.
Americans did NOT have the best tanks of the war. That distinction is almost universally given to the Soviet T-34 tank. It's the Sherman's production numbers+British recovery/repair+German armor and guns rolled into a simple but deadly package. American tanks were never really as good as the German ones - they nicknamed the Shermans 'Ronsons' because they tended to light up like a Ronson Lighter - but they had a lot of them.
American ships at the start of the war were about average - by the end of the war they were war-winning, thanks to superior tactics, superb radar and fire control, excellent guns and shells and the habit of American sailors and pilots not to 'go down with the ship'.
American planes were (initially) generally inferior to other designs particularly in the area of maneuverability. The ludicrous claim by 'Rafe' (Ben Affleck) that "You can't outrun Zeroes, you gotta out maneuver them" is like the Da Vinci Code claiming the Gnostics believed in a 'human Jesus' - the exact reverse is true! American planes did have better survivability and sometimes heavier armament than the Japanese planes.
The big difference is that the rookie American pilot of December 1941 fought and survived as best as he could for the length of his tour of duty and then WENT HOME to train other pilots before returning for another tour. The veteran Japanese pilot of December 1941 fought until he was killed, suicided or had his carrier sunk from under him. This is why there is a steady decline in Japanese pilot quality matched by a steady increase in American pilot quality. By Dec 1944, the situation is reversed - the Japanese are reduced to throwing poor untrained sods as human 'guided missiles' against American carriers while the American pilots have become almost uniformly veteran standard - and with the sheer number of American planes... they don't call it the Marianas Turkey Shoot for nothing.
The American practice of integrating troops somewhat haphazardly into their units was inferior to the German practice of maintaining cadres, forming march units and generally maintaining as much unit integrity as possible. The ability of German formations to fight and take and dish out punishment fighting a losing two front war was incredible and generally German military performance was superb up to December 1944.
I suppose there are those who feel that without the advantage of air/naval gunfire or seemingly limitless supply the American soldier is inferior to the British or German or Soviet soldier. I tend to disagree on the basis of actions such as Bastogne and Patton's dash to the Rhine. Well trained, well led and allowed time to build up experience, American soldiers performed at least as well as those of other countries. However, the fact that American military doctrine places - or seems to place - a premium on maneuver, casualty reduction, technological advantage and, at times, letting someone else do the 'dirty work' has led to a questioning of the qualities of the American fighting man. It's not true I believe but sometimes it does look like that in the minds of some.
Yes it is efficient and 'smart' warfare and I think the character of the American national psyche dictates this. It doesn't mean that the American soldier is worse than others, it's just that he fights SMARTER than many others and has generally better support and logistics than a lot of others.
My humble two cents,
Tom516
reply
share